Apple seeks OS-jacking advert patent Apple has filed a patent application for an intrusive ad-presentation system that requires users to acknowledge adverts before getting on with their work. The recent patent filing carries the unusually straightforward title "Advertisement in Operating System." The described system would be buried deep in a device's OS - so …
"...and you'd not be able to complete your job until you, as suggested in the filing, performed one of many possible actions."
One of the many possible ones being to ditch the device/OS and pick one that doesn't have the embedded forced advertising.
Or start a campaign to get people to boycott anything that they see advertised on the device.
The only thing that keeps me from driving out to 1 Infinite Loop and introducing a large wrench (that's a "spanner" to you Brits) to the heads of several of Apple's employees is the idea that this patent exists *solely to prevent anyone else* from ever doing the horrible, horrible things described within.
Oh Lord, *please* let my optimism be rewarded!
Bonus Horrible Thought: Using the built-in iSight camera and microphone, the computer would be able to visually or auditorily verify that you actually took the time to read the entire ad before clicking on the dismiss button.
First of all, they are patenting a general (and evil) idea, sounds like from the article -- I will never be arsed to look up a patent application to check. Is that allowed? I thought it wasn't.
Anyway, it's not as if Apple distributes their stuff for free and then makes money off of ads, as per Google, for example.
Down with Apple if this is ever implemented in their products.
Did they say they were going to revolutionise print media with their tablet by providing magazines and so on with a content delivery system? All those newspapers losing money because people can read information online for free will be interested in a tablet that allows them to plug unblockable advertisements.
Bad:
Users and workers who have paid the Apple tax for their devices get ads shoved in their faces at regular intervals. If this is the case, then the future will be belong to Microsoft, Google (Either one of these may licence the forced-ad patent) or Linux (unlikely, users looking to migrate away from an OS which disables itself while an ad displays will go in this direction).
Good 1:
Apple start providing a budget line of Macs with the Adware integrated in to the OS in order to get more people interested in the platform. (Psystar not so legal -> legal (and therefore fully supported officially) converts?)
Good 2:
This stops Microsoft or Google (Chrome OS) slapping their users with Ads and is designed purely to prevent developers and corporations going in this direction.
It's all about how the patent is meant. Steve Jobs is probably having a heart attack right about now because this patent might just be freaking people out and scaring them away from Apple.
I'm no fan of the Mac platform, however I consider it like hard drugs. Everyone is curious but very few actually try it. It's outside my budget and I would like one just to have a play with rather than for serious work.
Wow. Talk about a broad-based patent.
Just about any OS that can be rigged to boot directly into a browser that has all of its pop-up blocking, script protection, and other privacy settings disabled can be labeled as "infringing."
A Windows-based kiosk with IE set as the default shell, Google Chrome OS w/ pop-up blocking turned off, a Linux and Firefox/Iceweasel-based thin client, and a GPS unit with ad-supported real-time traffic updates would all qualify under the patent as written.
Not that I hope the patent finds actual use, of course...
I utterly detest advertisements.
I don't watch television ever (I don't even own one) in large part because of advertisements. I only ever use a web browser with adblock. I quickly skip over advertisements in newspapers.
If Apple started pushing out advertisements in the manner described ever under any circumstances I would kiss Apple goodbye forever. I love Mac OS X, but I hate advertisements more.
Is the patent stopping you from blocking said adverts and other crap that Microsoft & Apple (amongst others) decide to use to interrupt your use of the device be it phone or Computer.
When this becomes prevalent people will get mightily fed up with it and move to systems that don't mess with their user experience. Perhaps then it will be the year of the Linux Desktop.
On the otherhand if this patent is a blocking one then I applaud their action but the cynic in me says that it is a futile hope.
You've gotta love 'em.
Yep, I've seen server-side code from junior devs that contains modal popups on the server. Back in the fun days where that meant a walk into the server-farm, with all the signing in and out, forms and justifications etc that it meant. Just think, now you could do the same to dismiss an advert ;-)
Just what the world really needs, more advertising! I mean seriously, don't these people understand that the more they try and force this down our throat, the more likely they'll be a backlash.
If advertisers are worried about the decline of their field then they damn well need to realise that people don't *care* any more. It's already so pervasive on the internet that people really do switch off from them, otherwise how else can you explain the popularity of things like "No-Ad's" or similiar plug ins...
So, I am busy doing my work when all of a sudden i am hijacked by an advert from Apple telling me to do one of many things, but will one of them be to close the advert? also what is preventing potential hackers and hijackers from recreating these ads and invariably asking me to click close which then initiates something that enters my computer and gives them the control of it, or possible access or even destroying my computer? Surely this is a breach of my own rights to ignore adverts? when i am watching a program on TV i have the right and the means to mute the adverts or change the channel, so why must i be forced to acknowledge the adverts existence. Will Apple soon be forcing me to believe in one of the many religions out there or i will NEVER be allowed to use the internet again???
It could be a very clever ploy. Apple cross-licenses this to MS and ChocFac. They all turn it on, and people all over the world get Mightily Pissed. Downloads for Linux distros and the *BSDs go through the roof. Web stats show browser usage for IE, Chrome and Safari dropping to low-single-digit percentages. Then Steve Jobs rips off his mask and reveals himself to be a robot, remotely controlled by Richard Stallman.
Hmm ... part of me is hoping that this is being done purely to prevent others from patenting the tech/idea, thereby presenting ad-free operating systems for the rest of my natural life at least.
However, part of me is really quaking in fear at the abuse that a patent such as this allows the OS manufacturer to get away with.
Let's be quite clear ... any (and I mean any) OS that starts to push asvertising in my direction as part of the OS will in no short order become an OS that I will never - repeat - never consider using in any of its myriad guises at any point from there onwards. The day I run out of ad-free operating systems is the day that I finally become a true Luddite and renounce anything electronic at all.
If it's free - then fine, support it by advertising. If it is paid for then fu*k off ... I've paid for the privilege of having a fully paid up, ad free copy of the OS/software in question. Anything else is purely taking the piss..
Whenever Apple is on the road to success, someone has a moronic idea which will blow it. Clutching defeat, as they say, from the jaws of victory.
Apple dominate the mobile music market, are on track to dominating the smart phone market, and people are starting to notice the Macintosh again. What could possibly go wrong? What if some idiot should make their OS awkward, inconvenient and just plain annoying? That should do it.
Linux, anyone?
Personally, I think that people here are thinking small,
what about projecting life insurance advertisements to people on life support machines that disables the function of the machine until they agree ....
Dial 999 on your phone and have to agree to 10% off voucher at Starbucks before you can connect ...
Start a presentation in front of your latest client, with the boss present, and have to purchase Viagra before you can get to slide 3 ...
Would you like to download the latest Codec, before you can launch that nuke ... Actually that may be a good thing.
I have a feeling that the next upgrade to the Mac OS (White Weasel, or whatever it will be called) may be free if you agree to a lifetime subscription of Encylopedia Wikipedia, hardback version
for people who download apps and OS at low/no cost in return for having to watch advertising.
But I sure would like to see what would happen to Apple's business if they hard-coded this so that every time you saved or auto-saved a document you were working on it served up an add for Viagra or something :)
A friend of mine here in Melbourne (the capital of Victoria, Australia for the more ignorant of us) started up a company called "802!" which provided free open wifi in certain areas which was funded by a scheme like this. That must have been at least five years back, probably more. Sorry Jobs, you were beaten to the punch.
Paris because even she'd know enough to avoid a device with this sort of thing installed.
MS are mulling a similar "business model" I hear.
But you see, this is how the economy of the West now works. No one actually *makes* anything (only China makes things) -- we just consume, spend, drink disgusting StarFucks coffee and buy grossly over-inflated property. THIS is only supportable by making us buy more and more shit we don't need and can't afford without credit anyhow. We must have adverts pumped up us 24/7.
I fear for the future of mankind.
than the nag screen of so many shareware (or similar) apps? (winzip springs to mind)
or the please donate screen of vuze/azureus?
or those annoying flash ads that cover what your trying to read? until you click to close.
(thankfully disappeared since the installation of noscript circa firefox 2- are those ads still about?)
the list of prior art goes on...
i suppose its making the whole device useless instead of just the 1 program that makes this "innovative"... and i thought there was already a word for programs that prevent the user from using his/her device...
<insert troll answer - anything by ms, itunes, linux, bong! Times up, the answer i was looking for was in fact MALWARE (i would also have accepted virus/i)>
This post has been deleted by its author
In iTunes, there's a watermark ad in the Visualizer; it fades in and out on occasion. So if any outfit outside of Apple does this (MS, SAP, etc.) without Apple's permission and Apple hears about it, it's cease-and-desist or go to court time. Or if an outfit wants to do this, Apple automatically gets a cut each time the ad is clicked - ka-ching! -because it's their patent. MS could stick one in if it's a boot-leg copy of their OS forcing you to pay-up or continue being interrupted -ka-ching!
(AutoCAD would love this.) Nobody wants to pay that kind of tax going to a third party - Apple.
The return of 'clippy':
It looks like you're using an improperly licensed copy of <insert>. What would you like to do?
1. Register.
2. Buy a license.
2. Continue using this improperly licensed copy of <insert>.
. . . Ka-ching!
There is no way that Apple are that stupid and in all honesty, 99% of the above posts are nothing more than pure conjecture based on the worst case scenario.
It will either be a feature to counter the "content must be paid for" complaint of the media on the forthcoming tablet, or it'll be much cheaper Macs to counter the "only for the elite" complaint of the not-so-well-off..
It would be commercial suicide to inflict compulsory adverts on the existing customer base.
This post has been deleted by its author
At least Apple fans are just as impulsively daft as Microsoft fans when it comes to reading something into a patent, wildly extrapolating all kinds of horrible scenarios, then berating said vendor for their non-existent crime. El Reg could save a bit of time here by simply copying the comments from the "Microsoft sold my desktop" article and pasting them here and doing a find/replace.
And since there's really no fundamental difference between "real" marketing types and dirt-common spammers, not deep down in their disgusting little hearts, the reaction to ads like this will be just like the reaction to spam: do nearly anything to get away from it and ignore it.
For example, there's an ongoing spam campaign in the Craigslist discussion forums from some dimwit outfit calling itself "Toptog.com". They've been spamming for weeks, and their spam has been deleted as fast as it's flagged, but what apparently is over the head of the brains behind this spam campaign (one Amy Chen, one gathers) is that by now Toptog.com has alienated all their potential customers. The harder you spam, the poorer the results - and the same is true of advertising in general. The marketers will claim otherwise, but they're professional liars and can be expected to lie about something as close to their own vested interests.
If Rupert Murdoch wants to charge to look at his not-very-good news sites (Have you read The Times lately? It's pathetic!) all he has to do for widespread uptake is get rid of the ads - especially those disguised as news, for example the Times' endless articles on travel, where to stay, where to eat, and how to get there. That kind of news is little more than pimping for the businesses mentioned and one can't help but wonder what the price for inclusion is.
Sorry for the rant, o Divine Moderatrix!
The idea that the ads would make the product free is hopeful in the extreme. It is no longer the case that we are given a choice of Free+ads or Pay+no ads. Hollywood movies have already moved towards product endorsement and TV is doing the same, and these are not free - so the powers that be are seeing that the mugs (us) are prepared to pay AND have ads.
Personally I believe that any movie that has product endorsement should be free to watch (maybe a small admin charge for the theater - but nothing else). Unfortunately the trend is for non-free with ads, and I expect applications (and OSs) to go the same way - the excuse being that the ads are 'subsiding' the cost rather than meeting it.
It must be late (as I am in a very pessimistic mood).
GO APPLE!!!! YAY!!!!
<popup while reading this>
Thank you for choosing El Reg for all your technology news. Now a great opportunity for lost/no cost Viagra is available would you please take a survey so we can see how this impacts the IT industry?
?? Prior art? :P
Sorry Moderatrix and all fine Reg workers but I had to :)
Oh, only the negative response on show today.
This is a stonking idea, think of all the benefits here.
To keep it short.
A)Nobody likes working anyway.
B)After a while, nobody will be able to work.
That will leave endless free time, to sit at home watching TV, my particular favourite channel at the moment is QVC, soon I'll be able to watch that all day.
Only difficulty being, as I see it, who is going to sponsor me. Perhaps I'll have to get an Apple logo tattooed onto my fore head.
Why don't they just buy "Business Interruption" Insurance like everybody else ? Jobs evidently believes that Apple's Corporate Suicide is an act of God, not to be confused with an act of Jobs, more like an act of somebody who thinks they are God, but are not really Jobs. I could go on.
But seriously, aren't they risking a lawsuit from any spammer who rewired a dialog box so that "OK", "Cancel" and the X in the top right all launch a program ? I guess they'll be getting their appeal financed by Steve.
I'm a Mac*
*Or rather I'll get back to being one just as soon as you click on this non-blockable advert
It just works*
*As long as you click here, here aaaaaaaaaaand here
I'm Steve Jobs*
*I'm fucking insane. I want my company to be patronised by halfwits, occultists and masochists.
Intellectual property like this is one reason why Apple is a potential hostile takeover target (and Apple's cash reserves, of course). Google wants the world to use non-MS apps, running on Google's environments; either Google will gain revenues by subscription (which would legitimize MS's plans, and increase MS revenues, so not likely) or by advertising. An enforceable patent like this could seriously crimp Google's business model.
Pfft - we know what a wrench is....
Anyway, I had the same immediate thoughts as you, although being British, my optimism and hope quickly vanished as I realised the full scope of Jobs's evil plans.
Basically, there is no way a company that is as commercially driven as Apple would sit on this, sadly.
Same as many others here, if this cack starts appearing in my O/S, two choices, never upgrade/patch or simply dump OSX off my Mac and install Ubuntu Linux, even with it's minor faults at least I can reasonably assured it will not have ads in its code. If ads do appear in FOSS code, we can quickly strip the code and recompile, not like MS and OSX.
Sick and tired of these Ad companies behaving 300lb businessmen on a night out in Bangkok and we the consumers being treated like 6st Thai hookers, to be used and abused any way they see fit.
This is insidious almost makes Kurt and his Phorm toy seem reasonable!
Didn't know it would be possible to patent what is essentially a virus. Didn't know Jobs Inc. invented that too.Guess they think they can once again take somebody else's idea and make it their own with their marketing prowess. Wouldn't think they'd really increase market share if they become known as the company that "invented" the computer virus. Wonder if it'll be called the iVirus.
FFS there are a lot of regtards jumping to completely ridiculous conclusions here! It's so utterly obvious that none of the "I'll throw away my Mac" scenarios will ever happen. The potential use for this is either to stop other people from doing something similar (unlikely) or as a way to offer free versions of content (music, films etc) and satisfy the content producers, for example, letting you watch series or films on Apple TV for free, but in return you have to watch some ads, and I can't see anything wrong with that. You either pay to watch the film without ads, or you don't pay and are forced to watch some ads, the choice will always be yours.
Anyone who thinks that this will somehow mean that when using a Mac you'll be interrupted by ads you can't ignore just doesn't have the smallest clue.
"Or by depositing $1,000 in the bank account of St Steve?"
Or giving him your liver.
Bah, f*ck apple, Steve Jobs and everything related to them.
BTW, will mactards start boasting that their system has adverts that "just works"? Or that their mother/girlfriend/whatever can finally use the adverts, with no support, since they replaced their Windows box with a Mac?
Having the ads at the OS level is just a way to make them more difficult to block. If anyone seriously thinks that Apple, or any company that has the faintest idea of what its customers wants (and Apple is better at this than most), will insert unignorable ads into the everyday running of their OS/software then you just don't have a clue.
Anyone with any sense will not be the slightest bit concerned with this patent.
Well, I've given this thought but not too much thought.
I've given it consideration but not too much consideration.
And concluded but not too much of a conclusion that an ad based Apple OS is probably the best way to get Apple technology to the masses.
Think #1
You buy your kit at premium rates = no ads
Think #2
You buy your kit at grossly discounted rates and Apple makes up the difference with its ads in the OS campaign.
Niche marketing with cutting edge or wot!
Droolable way to get Apple stuff out there into the discount world yet at the same time keep Apple's brand high, high, high and higherer.
Yes, I've just gone from #2 purchaser to #3 purchaser and it is a lot better without al the ads?
Elitism maintained, nurtured, fostered and Done!
And! If it does not work well, it can be stopped in the second year and Apple's reputation has not been harmed but might have been empathised by its user base as a way to evangelise and promote its reson de etre ((?)!)
... over an UNAPPROVED, UNIMPLEMENTED patent application?
Some ("some"?) of the comments here seem to be assuming Apple are going to spam full-screen ads all over OS X. Yeah. Sure. Of COURSE that's what they'll do. And there goes the Pope, flying by my window on his favourite wingéd pet, Pigasus!
The iTablet will likely be the main recipient of this kind of technology. E-magazines could then be offered for free, with the ads paying for the content, or you could choose to subscribe and get the ad-free version. Embedding the ad support at the OS level makes it much harder for Joe Casual-User to switch off, and buys Apple a bit of credibility for their platform from the old guard in the print media.
(Don't believe me? Consider the evolution of iTunes and its changing approach to DRM.)
The iPhone might get similar support as it's likely to have a lot of overlap with the e-book reader market.
A distant possibility is an ad-supported version of iWorks bundled free with all new Macs, rather than the present trial version. (This seems unlikely. This model hasn't proven all that successful for Microsoft.)
You know, a patent's approval status has no bearing at all on whether the applicant can put the technology into any number of products. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Niente. Furthermore, applying for a software patent with the USPTO has a probability of being granted with a number of nines behind the decimal dot that would make a reliability engineer green with envy.
Also, you seem to be eminently unclear on the distinction between applications and the OS.
I'm perfectly clear on the distinction between apps and the OS. An OS is an app. It's just an app that runs other apps, providing a number of handy middleware to make writing said apps easier.
As for your other point: Apple also have a patent on an iPod with all the controls on its back. I don't see one of those around either. Do you?
Apple, Microsoft, IBM—every IT company on Earth—HAS to patent damned-near everything it develops, in case another company gets there first and tries to sue them. The USPTO, being a complete and utter cock-up of epic proportions, is about as effective at screening out "obvious" and "prior art" applications as the UK's current Prime Minister has been at preventing "boom and bust".
It's called arse-covering. All companies are now forced to do it, thanks to the law-happy lawyers who keep inventing more and more useless laws. (And not just in the US.)
This wont go live on paid for devices, might be good for kiosks and other presentation devices.
Hopefully they patented it just so nobody else will but say all that is wrong and they sell advertising on your machine :
Microsoft buys it all for their Are you a Mac or PC adverts.
Jazz it up a bit and add the tagline "I'm a PC and I'm advert free".
Sit back and watch Apple shares sink.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
